Euthanasia Authorization Debate

Introduction The debate about euthanasia is becoming broader as a result of the increase in the number of complex ailments. Looking at euthanasia from different perspectives reveals that it is largely an ethical issue. There is a division between those who support the practice and those who oppose it based on voluntary grounds.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Euthanasia Authorization Debate specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The main question that is raised concerning the practice of euthanasia revolves around the effects of legalizing it and its impact on the value of life. This paper takes the position that euthanasia should not be legalized because it goes against the principle of the sacredness of life. Understanding euthanasia McDougall, Gorman and Roberts (2008) define euthanasia as an easy way to terminate the life of a person. According to Chao, Chan and Chan (2002), euthanasia is not merely considered as a n ethical issue in the field of medicine, but it is also a legal, political, and philosophical issue. As observed in the introduction, the debate about euthanasia is expanding because of the nature of the arguments that are given in support and against the practice. One of the arguments, especially from the proponents, is that this practice can be incorporated in the law as a way of eliminating the negative attributes of euthanasia. From the religious perspective, it is apparent that life is sacred and should not be terminated by a human being in any way. Euthanasia, which is equivalent to the termination of life, can be equated to a total breach of the principle of the sacredness of life, as well as the breach of the legal right of human beings’ â€Å"right to life† embedded in most, if not all, common laws. In the true sense, giving the doctors a right to prescribe medication to kill and giving people rights to make a determination of whether to fight for their lives or to terminate life is something to be worried about. From the logical and religious perspectives, this is looked at as murder, on the one hand, and suicide, on the other hand (Cohen-Almagor, 2004). Critical issues in legalizing and justifying euthanasia According to Otlowski (2000), the practice of euthanasia in the field of medicine has been criminalized in many countries as a way of controlling the negative practices of rampant and uncontrolled adoption of the practice. The separation of the two forms of euthanasia has not been fully attained. These dimensions are active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. However, the criminalization of the practice is not enough since it implies that the practice could still be done undercover.Advertising Looking for essay on ethics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Trying to categorize the practice into various dimensions is a way of attempting to legalize the practice, something that co uld result in paving way for the authorization of euthanasia across different countries (Otlowski, 2000). Moreover, legalizing euthanasia could make it hard to differentiate between the genuine cases of suicide and cases of assisted suicide. Most cases of suicide are likely to be hidden under assisted suicide if the practice is made legal (Otlowski, 2000). According to McDougall, Gorman and Roberts (2008), attitudes have continued to play a great role is shaping the advancement of euthanasia in the society. The positive attitudes towards euthanasia need to be suppressed because they imply putting the life of the people in their hands, besides undermining the role of religion in shaping life in the society. The issue here is that doctors can only use the medical expertise to argue that the person cannot survive from the given ailment. However, there are cases in which doctors are overwhelmed by the positive progress that is made by patients considering that the progress goes far beyo nd their assessment of the patients. This is where religion overpowers events in the realms of medicine and healthcare, thus the support of the view that life is sacred and divine. Euthanasia is declared illegal in almost all countries in the world. It is only legalized in one country in the world, the Nethelands. Other countries like Australia, which seem to be interested in legalizing the practice, have been torn between whether to fully incorporate the practice in their common laws or abolish it altogether (Cohen-Almagor, 2004; Chao, Chan Chan, 2002). This itself is a reason enough to raise eyebrows about the ethical stance of the practice. The implication here is that other countries in the world are finding it quite awkward to incorporate euthanasia in their common laws because of the perceived dangers on the value of life if the practice is instituted (Cohen-Almagor, 2004). In spite of the law being enacted in the Netherlands in the year 2001, its enforcement is supervised by a special committee composed of a lawyer, a doctor, and an expert in ethics. Here, it is worthwhile to argue that unlike other laws, there is something wrong with the enactment of the euthanasia law. This is its implementation is being monitored by the special committee. There can be a lot of loopholes when it comes to the implementation of the law. People can take advantage of the law to go against the observance of human rights, yet it is one of the key laws in the common laws of states (Cohen-Almagor, 2004).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Euthanasia Authorization Debate specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More According to Perrin and McGhee (2006), there is more legal engagement in the debate about end-of- life medical determination across different countries in the world. The rationality of the issue revolves around the level at which euthanasia can be considered effective and eliminate the issue of the sacredness of life and human rights concerns, as well as ethics in the medical field. However, according to Cohen-Almagor (2004), it is clear that it is quite daunting to legalize euthanasia and uphold the sacredness of life, as well as the observation of the key principles of human rights at the same time. The legalization of euthanasia by all means undermines the value of life as instituted in the common laws, as well as most of the religious principles encoded in the religious manuals. Conclusion From the observation made in the paper, it is evident that the debate about the authorization of euthanasia is volatile. However, there are outstanding issues that are raised in the paper that totally point against the authorization of the practice. First is the sacredness of human life as depicted by religion and the common laws of almost all states across the globe. Legalizing euthanasia means infringing the right to life. The second point is that only one country in the world has legalized the practice, yet the same country finds it hard to totally institute the practice. Therefore, it can be concluded that life remains to be the most sacred thing for all human beings. The legalization of euthanasia can pave way for the devaluation of life through the weakening of the law of human rights and the religious principles regarding the divinity and sacredness of human beings and life. References Chao, D., Chan, N., Chan, W. (2002). Euthanasia revisited. Family Practice, 19(2), 128-134. Cohen-Almagor, R. (2004). Euthanasia in the Netherlands: The policy and practice of mercy killing. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. McDougall, J. F., Gorman, M., Roberts, C. S. (2008). Euthanasia: A reference handbook (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Advertising Looking for essay on ethics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Otlowski, M. (2000). Voluntary euthanasia and the common law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Perrin, K. O., McGhee, J. (2006). Quick look nursing: Ethics and conflict (2nd ed.). Sudbury, Canada: Jones and Bartlett. This essay on Euthanasia Authorization Debate was written and submitted by user Emily P. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Partir Conjugation in French, Translation, and Examples

Partir Conjugation in French, Translation, and Examples Partir  is one of the most common French verbs and it means to leave, though it can take on other meanings as well. In order to use partir  in conversations, you will need to learn how to conjugate it. Partir is an irregular verb, so it does not follow the common patterns found in French. Therefore, you will have to memorize it in all its forms. With time you will learn it and, luckily, partir is so common that youll find plenty of opportunities to practice it. Partir  is not all alone in its conjugations, however. Most French verbs ending in  -mir,  -tir, or  -vir  are conjugated the same way. That means that once you learn one, each new verb becomes a little easier.   In this article you will find the conjugations of partir in the present, present progressive, compound past, imperfect, simple future, near future indicative, the conditional, the present subjunctive, as well as the imperative and the gerund. The Many Meanings of  Partir Partir  most commonly means to leave in the general sense of leaving a place. It is the opposite of  arriver  (to arrive). For example, Je vais partir ce soir (Im going to leave tonight) and Il nest pas parti hier (He didnt leave yesterday). Partir  has a few other meanings as well. For example, it can be used to mean to shoot or to fire: Le coup est parti tout seul (The gun went off (fired) by itself) and Le bouchon est parti au plafond (The cork shot up to the ceiling). Partir can also mean to start or to get off to: Tout à §a est bien/mal parti (It got off to a good/bad start) and On est parti sur une mauvaise piste (We got off on the wrong track, to a bad start). Partir  is a semi-auxiliary, meaning that in some cases it can act in the same way as à ªtre or  avoir.  Ã‚  In this instance, when  partir  is combined with an infinitive verb it means to leave in order to do something: Peux-tu partir acheter du pain  ? (Could you go and buy some bread?) and Il est parti à ©tudier en Italie  (He left to study in Italy). As a euphemism, partir  means  to die or to pass away: Mon mari est parti (My husband passed away). Partir  With Prepositions Partir  is intransitive, which means that it cannot be followed by a  direct object. However, it may be followed by a preposition and an indefinite object (e.g., the destination or point/purpose of departure), or by a day, time, or other modifiers: Ils partent de Paris demain. -  Theyre leaving (from) Paris tomorrow.Quand vas-tu partir la chasse  ? -  When are you leaving to go hunting?Il est parti pour luniversità ©.  -  He left for college / went to college.On va partir demain. -  Were going to leave tomorrow. Additionally,  partir  can have different meanings depending on the preposition that follows it. partir    infinitive means  to start (doing something, usually suddenly): As in,  Il est parti pleurer (He started crying, burst into tears) or  Je suis parti rire  (I started laughing, burst into laughter).partir dans   noun means to start (doing something which interrupts something else): As in, Il est parti dans une digression sans fin (He went off into an endless tangent) and Ne pars pas dans une grande colà ¨re (Dont get all mad).partir de  has two meanings:to begin on or to start from: As in, Le contrat partira du 3 aoà »t  (The contract will begin on August 3rd.) and Cest le deuxià ¨me en partant de la gauche (Its the second from the left).to come from: As in, Ça part du cÅ“ur (It comes from the heart) and Doà ¹ part ce bruit  ? (Where is this noise coming from?).partir pour   infinitive also means to start (and gives the impression of continuing for a long time): As in, Il est parti pour parler pendant une heure (He started talking and looked like hed keep going for an hour) and Elle est partie pour nous raconter sa vie (She started telling us her life story). Expressions With  Partir There are a few common French expressions that rely on  partir. For many of these, you will need to conjugate the verb, using what you learn in this lesson. Practicing these in simple sentences will make them easier to remember. partir de  - from (time, date, place) partir de maintenant  - from now on partir de ce moment-l  - from then on partir du moment oà ¹Ã‚  - as soon as vos marques  ! Prà ªts  ? Partez  !  - On your marks! Get set! Go!cest parti  - here we go, here goes Present Indicative The present indicative in French can be translated to English as the simple present tense I leave or as the present progressive Im leaving. Je pars Je pars tout seul. I leave by myself. Tu pars Tu pars de Paris. You leave Paris. Il/Elle/On part Elle part acheter du pain. She leaves to go buy bread. Nous partons Nous partons pied. We leave on foot. Vous partez Vous partez avec vos amis. You leave with your friends. Ils/Elles partent Ils partent au Canada. They leave for Canada. Present Progressive Indicative As mentioned above, the present progressive in French can be expressed with the simple present tense, but it can also be formed with the present tense conjugation of the verb à ªtre (to be) en train de the infinitive verb (partir). Je suis en train de partir Je suisen train de partir tout seul. I am leaving by myself. Tu esen train de partir Tu esen train de partir de Paris. You are leaving Paris. Il/Elle/On esten train de partir Elle esten train de partir acheter du pain. She is leaving to go buy bread. Nous sommesen train de partir Nous sommesen train de partir pied. We are leaving on foot. Vous à ªtesen train de partir Vous à ªtesen train de partir avec vos amis. You are leaving with your friends. Ils/Elles sonten train de partir Ils sonten train de partir au Canada. They are leaving for Canada. Compound Past Indicative Verbs like partir  require  Ãƒ ªtre  when used in compound tenses  like the  passà © composà ©. To construct this past tense, you will need the auxiliary verb  Ãƒ ªtre and the past participle  parti. Notice that when you form the passà © composà © with à ªtre, the past participle must agree in gender and number with the subject. Je suis parti/partie Je suis parti tout seul. I left by myself. Tu es parti/partie Tu es parti de Paris. You left Paris. Il/Elle/On est parti/partie Elle est partie acheter du pain. She left to go buy bread. Nous sommes partis/parties Nous sommes partis pied. We left on foot. Vous à ªtes parti/partis/parties Vous à ªtes partis avec vos amis. You left with your friends. Ils/Elles sont partis/parties Ils sont partis au Canada. They left for Canada. Imperfect Indicative The imperfect tense is another past tense, but it is usually used to talk about ongoing events or repeated actions in the past, and is normally translated to English as was leaving or used to leave. Je partais Je partais tout seul. I used to leave by myself. Tu partais Tu partais de Paris. You used toleave Paris. Il/Elle/On partait Elle partaitacheter du pain. She used to leave to go buy bread. Nous partions Nous partions pied. We used toleave on foot. Vous partiez Vous partiez avec vos amis. You were leavingwith your friends. Ils/Elles partaient Ils partaient au Canada. They were leavingfor Canada. Simple Future Indicative Je partirai Je partirai tout seul. I will leave by myself. Tu partiras Tu partirasde Paris. Youwill leave Paris. Il/Elle/On partira Elle partiraacheter du pain. She willleave to go buy bread. Nous partirons Nous partirons pied. Wewill leave on foot. Vous partirez Vous partirez avec vos amis. Youwill leave with your friends. Ils/Elles partiront Ils partiront au Canada. Theywill leave for Canada. Near Future Indicative The near future in French is formed with the present tense conjugation of the verb aller (to go) the infinitive (partir). It can be translated to English as going to verb. Je vais partir Je vaispartir tout seul. I am going to leave by myself. Tu vaspartir Tu vaspartir de Paris. Youare going to leave Paris. Il/Elle/On vapartir Elle vapartir acheter du pain. She is going toleave to go buy bread. Nous allonspartir Nous allonspartir pied. Weare going toleave on foot. Vous allezpartir Vous allezpartir avec vos amis. Youare going to leave with your friends. Ils/Elles vontpartir Ils vontpartir au Canada. Theyare going to leave for Canada. Conditional To talk about hypothetical or possible events, you can use the conditional mood. Je partirais Je partirais tout seul si je n'avais peur. I would leave by myself if I were not scared. Tu partirais Tu partiraisde Paris si tu pouvais. Youwould leave Paris if you could. Il/Elle/On partirait Elle partirait acheter du pain si elle avais d'argent. She wouldleave to go buy bread if she had money. Nous partirions Nous partirions pied si ce n'à ©tait pas loin. Wewould leave on foot if it were not far. Vous partiriez Vous partiriez avec vos amis, mais vos amis ne peuvent pas aller. Youwould leave with your friends, but your friends can't go. Ils/Elles partiraient Ils partiraient au Canada s'ils voulaient. Theywould leave for Canada if they wanted to. Present Subjunctive The subjunctive mood is used in situations when the action of leaving is uncertain. Que je parte Mon pà ¨re suggà ¨re que je parte tout seul. My father suggests that I leave by myself. Que tu partes Le juge exige que tu partes de Paris. The judge demands that you leave Paris. Qu'il/Elle/On parte Le patron conseille qu'elle parte acheter du pain. The boss advises that she leave to go buy bread. Que nous partions Charles souhaite que nous partions pied. Charles wishes that we leave on foot. Que vous partiez Jacques prà ©fà ¨re que vous partiez avec vos amis. Jacques prefers that you leave with your friends. Qu'ils/Elles partent Le prà ©sident souhaite qu'ils partent au Canada. The president wishes that they leave for Canada. Imperative When you want to say something like Leave! you can use the imperative verb mood. In this case, theres no need to include the subject pronoun, so simply say, Pars ! Also, to form the negative commands, just place ne...pas around the positive command. Positive commands Tu pars ! Pars de Paris ! Leave Paris! Nous partons! Partons pied ! Let's leave on foot! Vous partez! Partez avec vos amis ! Leave with your friends! Negative commands Tu ne pars pas ! Ne pars pas de Paris ! Don't leave Paris! Nous ne partons pas! Ne partons pas pied ! Let's not leave on foot! Vous ne partez pas ! Ne partez pas avec vos amis ! Don't leave with your friends! Present Participle/Gerund The  present participle  of  partir  is  partant. This was formed by adding the ending  -ant  to the verb stem. One of the uses of the present participle is to form the gerund (usually preceded by the preposition en), which is often used to talk about simultaneous actions. Present participle/gerund ofPartir partant Je pleure en partant Paris. I cry while leaving Paris.

Speed management proposal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Speed management proposal - Essay Example A general agreement that exists is that injuries on the roads increase because of speed and so objectives of safety and mobility can be conflicting. Globally, over speeding is one hell of a predicament to control in our roadways and is an immense contributor to most of the accidents witnessed both in rural and urban areas by traffic officials and residents. It is a belief by many individuals that eradication of speeding will save people’s lives by driving at a speed that is appropriate (Ioainnoou, 1997, pg 216). A road accident is considered related to over speeding if the driver is charged with an offense of over speeding. Additionally, if a traffic officer who is on the location indicates that the driver at some point was over speeding past the required speed limit when the accident occurred then it became over speeding-related. Road accidents related to over speeding have led to many deaths worldwide and, as a result, the community, and insurance firms have incurred excessi ve costs. Accidents or crash are more likely to happen the faster a driver drives and the higher the risk of getting injuries that are brutal and even loss of life. Accidents and speed relate to another due to a number of dependent factors. For instance, how severe the injury of the occupants of the vehicle involved in a crash is not only determined by the speed that resulted in the collision but also the difference in mass of the two involved vehicles.